Mind your twitters!

[biggytitbo]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/7016266/Man-arrested-under-Terrorism-Act-for-Doncaster-airport-Twitter-joke.html

A man was arrested under the Terrorism Act and issued with a life ban from Doncaster's airport after joking on Twitter that he would blow it "sky high" if his flight was delayed.

Paul Chambers made the comment on January 6 after snowfall threatened to delay his plans to travel to Ireland on January 15.
"Robin Hood airport is closed," he wrote. "You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"

But while most of his friends enjoyed the joke, someone clearly didn't and alerted the police, who arrived on Mr Chambers' doorstep on January 13.

"Then they said I was being arrested under the Terrorism Act and produced a piece of paper. It was a print-out of my Twitter  page. That was when it dawned on me."

He was arrested under the Terrorism Act on suspicion of conspiring to create a bomb hoax and taken into police custody where he was questioned for seven hours.

Terrorists are well known for announcing their plans in advance on twitter aren't they? And if they're monitoring what people write on twitter then why not Facebook or even here?

[Neil]

And if they're monitoring what people write on twitter then why not Facebook or even here?

They're not "monitoring" Twitter, they're responding to something that was reported to them.  Which is their job.

[biggytitbo]

I find it very hard to believe that someone following his twitters would report him for what to human interpretation is a clear and obvious joke. Correct me if I'm wrong, hes not a celeb, so people following his twitters would be people he knows?

I think its more likely this was an example of sweeping for keywords like 'bomb' and 'airport'. if so a classic example of the misuse of data mining because its strips human sentences pf their meaning and context and extracts the sinister from the perfectly innocent.

And besides, once the cops looked at the conversation they'd literally have to be cretins to pursue it under the terrorism act.

[Neil]

I find it very hard to believe that someone following his twitters would report him for what to human interpretation is a clear and obvious joke. Correct me if I'm wrong, hes not a celeb, so people following his twitters would be people he knows?

People following him, yes, but they're open to the rest of the internet.  And the people following him may not be even people who like him - someone could have taken the oppurtunity to get back at him.

I think its more likely this was an example of sweeping for keywords like 'bomb' and 'airport'. if so a classic example of the misuse of data mining because its strips human sentences pf their meaning and context and extracts the sinister from the perfectly innocent.

And besides, once the cops looked at the conversation they'd literally have to be cretins to pursue it under the terrorism act.

The article says the cops didn't even know what Twitter was!

"I had to explain Twitter to them in its entirety because they'd never heard of it. Then they asked all about my home life, and how work was going, and other personal things," he said.

Yes, it appears as a joke, but airports and cops don't have a terribly great sense of humour when it comes to that kind of 'haha, COURSE I've got something to declare - a big BOMB in my suitcase' idiocy.  Particularly when someone's just tried to blow up one of their planes quite recently. 

if so a classic example of the misuse of data mining because its strips human sentences pf their meaning and context and extracts the sinister from the perfectly innocent.

Along with your assumption that this was data mining, rather than someone reporting it as the article says, you're also assuming a lot about how data mining works.  Surely any such info would be sent on to someone who DOES have to examine context and meaning, and then decide whether it's worth going any further.

[biggytitbo]

The bit about the cops not knowing what Twitter is is where I call bullshit. Even my mother who has never used a computer in her life has heard of twitter. A feeble attempt to feign innocence, what I think this is really about is this - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-laughing-policemen-inaccurate-data-boosts-arrest-rate-1870416.html
The police turning to bullying the general public over trivial matters in order to meet various targets.

I'm not that familiar with twitter so I guess it could be someone who stumbled upon it out of context, but as you rightly pointed out, someone must have examined it in context and at that point they must know this was just a banal jokey aside viewed by about 12 people and not a terrorist announcing in advance under his own name to the general public his intent to blow up Doncaster airport for canceling his flight to Ireland. If these trained intelligence operatives can't see this they should be sacked immediately because I fear for their ability to detect real terrorism.

So this guy is arrested and detained for 7 hours, has had his computer, laptop and iphone confiscated, (he won't see them again in a hurry), is banned for life from Doncaster airport and is now presumably on some sort of watch list so going to the States is probably out of the question. All for an obvious joke on Twitter. It's going too far isnt it?

And it's not as if this gross overreaction and willful stupidity in the name of anti terror is out of context either, its becoming a broken record.

[Shaun]

I find it very hard to believe that someone following his twitters would report him for what to human interpretation is a clear and obvious joke. Correct me if I'm wrong, hes not a celeb, so people following his twitters would be people he knows?

Are you suggesting the police aren't humans? I mean even if they were data mining for the words "bomb" and "airport", someone, presumably a human, would have had to read it before the police went to arrest him. I think it's very unlikely it was a result of data mining though, I don't think it would be possible to sift through all the occurrences you would get of people mentioning bombs or airports on social networking sites, and even less possible to dispatch the police every time they were mentioned.

It was clearly idiotic to arrest him for it though.

Edit: I wrote that before the above post. It's a bit redundant now.

[rudi]

The police are equired to follow it up if it's reported. And what were the alternatives? For it to be true? Or for it to be the work of the tabs and they don't follow it up? Fuck it; they're already at work, they might as well check the computer.

Biggy, you see conspiracy where there lies only working schmoes just wanking for coins, same as the rest of us.

[Pedro_Bear]

As likely to be an inadequate twat calling the police for the brief peak of self-esteem at the attention they get over the phone. That shit happens all the time. Given anyone can read the guy's page, they might not even have to be subscribed, although exactly what was typed into in a general search engine to land on his page would have to be very convoluted to get a clean hit.

I wonder what happened to the part of the policing job that required them to assess information before sending out the troops, officers, officers? If they had a print out of the page, they had enough context in between the "is this thing working?" "@nobody LOL" "mmm, fishsticks for dinner" to determine that this was bullshit. Still, seven hours of questioning an obviously innocent ediot is easy money for the two cops in the interrogation room, I guess. Taking the median pay for cuntstables, that equates to around £200 of cash well earned, just in that one room. Nah, something's up with this incident, more so than the usual lazy money making.

'The lead investigator kept asking, "Do you understand why this is happening?" and saying, "It is the world we live in".

Yeah, he knew this was bullshit, but went through the motions. It could be a police rebellion of sorts, highlighting the ludicrous way anti-terror horseshit takes precedent over other sorts of policing? Seems unlikely that a genuine terror suspect would (a) be bailed (b) be able to talk to the press without full police backing. The guy's due back at the station to make some lucky cunstables more easy money on Feb 11th, it would have been no effort to keep this incident quiet until then, if they'd needed to do so. The way we know so much about what else this incident has cost the guy, it's priming us to tut tut at the police protocols.


Incidentally, are there any examples of terrorists or rave organisers using social networking bullshit to conduct their criminal activities? I've heard of a drug dealer selling windowbox marijuana via myspace, briefly, but they were ToS'd sharpish.

[biggytitbo]

Surely data mining something as open as twitter is an absolute piece of piss for GCHQ? They have an absolutely vast capacity for internet surveillance, I'd be very surprised it it didn't include social networking sites although they tend to hold their cards close to their chest on exactly what they do and don't do because of the often dubious legality of it.

But yes, regardless of the source whoever read and interpreted the twitter conservation, including this blokes friends getting his joke, is either an incompetent cretin or deliberately targeting innocent members of the public.

It's not good.

[Neil]

I'm not that familiar with twitter so I guess it could be someone who stumbled upon it out of context, but as you rightly pointed out, someone must have examined it in context and at that point they must know this was just a banal jokey aside viewed by about 12 people and not a terrorist announcing in advance under his own name to the general public his intent to blow up Doncaster airport for canceling his flight to Ireland. If these trained intelligence operatives can't see this they should be sacked immediately because I fear for their ability to detect real terrorism.

The problem is, that it might have been someone making a real threat - just as people who go out and shootup high schools have now been found making 'they don't realise what I'm capable of!' comments on web forums and the like.  You're dealing with a medium where you have a lack of context, not to mention the sort of information we use to make judgements in everyday communication, simply because of the nature of it - when you add to that the fact that Twitter has a very small amount of characters available for each message, well, I just can't see what the fuss is, really.  You'd expect the police to check up on this kind of ambiguity when it's pointed out, surely. 

It's an interesting case of the authorities trying to understand and contend with new media, I think, rather than any evidence of a police state.  Ditto members of the public finding out what the limits of the net are...you wouldn't stroll round town with a megaphone shouting 'I'm going to blow up an airport next week' and expect to get away with it, after all.

[rudi]

Oh, and when you read "he was questioned for seven hours", what actually happened was he was locked in a cell for six hours while the detectives involved went about their day before returning to the station and questioning the two or three people they've had locked up for twenty minutes each before filling in the form, punching out and going home.

[biggytitbo]

Yeah, he knew this was bullshit, but went through the motions.

They certainly did, they're lying through their teeth pretending not to know what twitter was as if that's some defense for their gross stupidity. No, its just a case of bullying pure and simple, something they are given unlimited license to do by the terrorism act.

[Shaun]

In terms of the actual technical possibility it would be easy, but you'd still have to have a human read every message the computer flagged up, which would be a fucking lot. If they do do that I think it's extremely unlikely it will be based on words like "bomb", but more likely specific language islamist terrorist groups are known to use for example, if there is such a thing.

[rudi]

its just a case of bullying pure and simple

Or just a case of people doing their fucking job. They'll get nothing but "tchoh, bt of a waste of time" if he's just joking. Should they not follow it up and he blows up a plane? Well, no need to spell it out.

Do you literally never consider a situation from the other side?

[rudi]

In terms of the actual technical possibility it would be easy, but you'd still have to have a human read every message the computer flagged up, which would be a fucking lot. If they do do that I think it's extremely unlikely it will be based on words like "bomb", but more likely specific language islamist terrorist groups are known to use for example, if there is such a thing.

If "bomb" is a trigger word they really need to include a filter to avoid hip hop blogs...

[An tSaoi]

And this site.

[biggytitbo]

It's an interesting case of the authorities trying to understand and contend with new media, I think, rather than any evidence of a police state.  Ditto members of the public finding out what the limits of the net are...you wouldn't stroll round town with a megaphone shouting 'I'm going to blow up an airport next week' and expect to get away with it.

I disagree about the evidence for as police state, but aside from that it sure is an interesting example of how social networking is changing the world. We all accept that shouting bomb in an airport is a bad thing, and that a private jokey remark to a friend is no one else's business, but with stuff like twitter and Facebook it really blurs the line between those two extremes. Everything you type o the internet can potentially be seen by anyone, for time immemorial, so you really have to be incredibly careful. Something which I think the younger people who weren't around pre internet  just don't understand. They're going to get a nasty surprise in a few years when potential employers google their names that's for sure.

[Welshy]

Oh, and when you read "he was questioned for seven hours", what actually happened was he was locked in a cell for six hours while the detectives involved went about their day before returning to the station and questioning the two or three people they've had locked up for twenty minutes each before filling in the form, punching out and going home.

Actually, it was more likely that he was locked in a cell for 6 hours waiting for his solicitor to arrive, then to read the file, interview his client, pre-prepare a statement and then be childishly beligerent throughout the interview. Nice work if you can get it, lucrative too.

[biggytitbo]

Or just a case of people doing their fucking job. They'll get nothing but "tchoh, bt of a waste of time" if he's just joking. Should they not follow it up and he blows up a plane? Well, no need to spell it out.

Do you literally never consider a situation from the other side?

If this is people doing their job then THEIR JOB IS WRONG, why can't you grasp that FFS?

[Pedro_Bear]

I dunno biggy, we know too much about this incident, too many details. We never, ever get to know this stuff when other so-called terror suspects are detained. The use of Twitter practically guarantees national newpaper coverage.

Oh, and when you read "he was questioned for seven hours", what actually happened was he was locked in a cell for six hours while the detectives involved went about their day before returning to the station and questioning the two or three people they've had locked up for twenty minutes each before filling in the form, punching out and going home.

Or they question you in pairs, in shifts, constantly, like with terrorism suspects. Or eco-protestors they suspect of being organisers.

Or just a case of people doing their fucking job. They'll get nothing but "tchoh, bt of a waste of time" if he's just joking. Should they not follow it up and he blows up a plane? Well, no need to spell it out.

Do you literally never consider a situation from the other side?

You clearly haven't been on the other other side. The charge this guy was collared for is a filler: i.e. something that fits the twitter print out in their hand. They knew he wasn't a terrorist when they led him away from his home. It is not doing their fucking job to invent phantom crimes to hold innocent people, there are enough criminals for them to apprehend to keep them busy, and if there aren't, then we've got a very nice cut in the council tax due with some very rich savings that can be made via redundancies, haven't we?

[Shaun]

Did I mention I plan to blow up a blimp next week?*


_{*To the police: not really}

[rudi]

Or they question you in pairs, in shifts, constantly, like with terrorism suspects. Or eco-protestors they suspect of being organisers.

Bleh; you say yourself they knew it was just a dumb guy joking. I've been arrested often enough to know that if you've just been a twat they leave you to stew then go through the motions.

You clearly haven't been on the other other side. The charge this guy was collared for is a filler: i.e. something that fits the twitter print out in their hand. They knew he wasn't a terrorist when they led him away from his home. It is not doing their fucking job to invent phantom crimes to hold innocent people, there are enough criminals for them to apprehend to keep them busy, and if there aren't, then we've got a very nice cut in the council tax due with some very rich savings that can be made via redundancies, haven't we?

So you're saying they knew he wasn't a terrorist but they probably questioned him like one? Balls; like the idiot joker at the airport gate who says he has a bomb in his bag they just did their version of the cavity search.

Wasn't it you who made such a big thing out of people having to learn the hard way, however painful the medicine?

I bet he never tweets something this dumb again...

If this is people doing their job then THEIR JOB IS WRONG, why can't you grasp that FFS?

That may be so, but it's not their fault. Believe me, I'm happy to believe much that is written about the police and their abuse of their powers, but then I tend to try and gather evidence rather than just take a side based on fuck all and refuse to believe another explanation. That's why you're the boy who cried wolf: any time you get something right it's too easy to weigh ot against all the other scares you print. Even a stopped clock is corrrect twice a day.

[Welshy]

This is such a non-story. There's nothing to read between the lines here, nothing beyond the bare facts :

Self-indulgent man makes idiotic and particularly unfunny joke.
Self-indulgent man's joke is reported to Police.
Police respond to self-indulgent man's joke by taking self-indulgent man's joke seriously, because they must.
Self-indulgent man is arrested.
Self-indulgent man provides account to Police.
Self-indulgent man is released.
Self-indulgent man goes to papers.
The End.

[Desi Rascal]

 didn't a 4chaner get arrested and banged up for spoofing bomb threats on the internet some while back?

wiki edit

On October 18, 2006, the Department of Homeland Security warned National Football League officials in Miami, New York City, Atlanta, Seattle, Houston, Oakland, and Cleveland about a possible threat involving the simultaneous use of dirty bombs at stadiums.[55] The threat claimed that the attack would be carried out on October 22, the final day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.[56] Both the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security expressed doubt concerning the credibility of the threats, but warned the relevant organizations as a precaution. The games proceeded as planned but under a higher level of security awareness.[57] The threats came to light in the national media after blogger Jake Brahm admitted to having posted the threats on 4chan and repeating them on other websites approximately 40 times.[56] Brahm did not expect the message to be taken seriously since he "would never take anything posted on 4chan as fact";[58] an FBI official was quoted as saying the "credibility of [the threat] was beyond ridiculous".[14] As a parody of the incident, 4chan temporarily added "Don't mess with football" as an additional rule for /b/.[14]

"Hello, /b/. On September 11, 2007, at 9:11 A.M. Central time, two pipe bombs will be remote-detonated at Pflugerville High School. Promptly after the blast, I, along with two ther Anonymous, will charge the building, armed with a Bushmaster AR-15, IMI Galil AR, a vintage, government-issue M1 .30 Carbine, and a Benelli M4 semi auto shotgun."

—The Pflugerville threat.[59]
On October 20, 2006, Brahm turned himself in to federal authorities, and was charged with fabricating a fake terrorist threat and taken into custody.[60] On February 28, 2008, he pled guilty to the federal charges. On June 5, 2008, he was sentenced to six months in prison, six months' house arrest, and ordered to pay $26,750 in restitution.[61]

[chocky909]

I don't think it is a FACT that the police MUST arrest someone because of a stupid jokey comment on the internet. Granted, if it is reported it should be investigated but that should've taken about 5 minutes. Waste of time, effort and resources. But maybe that is missing the point. This kind of display of power may well be intentional as a message to the general public. A warning to dissidents and a reassurance to those that already think terrorism is behind every other front door.

[rudi]

I just think that, in today's climate, it's not worth it not to arrest him in their opinion. Only bad things can happen if they don't; if they do, well, they get paid after 8 hours whether they're wrestling shooters off a tasty piece of work or they're trawling through some idiot's holiday snaps...

As I say, I'm not claiming that's healthy, or even right; they're working under the same conditions we all recognise.

[Welshy]

I don't think it is a FACT that the police MUST arrest someone because of a stupid jokey comment on the internet. Granted, if it is reported it should be investigated but that should've taken about 5 minutes. Waste of time, effort and resources. But maybe that is missing the point. This kind of display of power may well be intentional as a message to the general public. A warning to dissidents and a reassurance to those that already think terrorism is behind every other front door.

I'm afraid a public proclamation of terrorist intent is grounds for arrest under any circumstances. Be it humorous, satirical or, as in this case, self-indulgent idiocy.

Due to the nature of the offence the investigation would necessitate a forensic examination of his computer and any other mobile data storage device found at the address. This takes longer than 5 minutes

[Dusty Gozongas]

Smells of biggy-baiting again :-(

Have a think. If he was suspected of being part of a bomb plot which he'd "announced" nine days in advance and if it was being taken seriously, would it have been dealt with in the same manner? I'm assuming it was bobbies from his local nick who pulled this one, since there's no mention of swat teams or Special Branch or terror-cell bustin' surveillance exercises in the article.

So. Yeah. Nothing that a quiet word in the silly man's ear wouldn't have sorted out. Bullying really.

[Lfbarfe]

Doubtless publicised heavily to deter any other Mike Gigglers from pulling anything similar. The over-reaction might be part of that too. "Very funny, sir. Any other humorous material on your computer?".

[Dusty Gozongas]

If only it would stop some of the stupidest of the stupid "joke" SMS messages doing the rounds...